An Egyptian Source for Genesis I

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS iWITHIN ancient Near Eastern thought the moment of creationwas deemed to connect immediately to the existing order. Theprimeval ordering of the world, however it was conceived, wastherefore of unique philosophical and theological significance. Itconferred upon contemporary norms a legitimacy and perman-ence, beyond their true validity, which guaranteed them absolutestatus. The priestly account of creation in Genesis 1:1—2:48 ina similar way confers upon Israel and her cultic institutions alegitimacy and validity within the given orders of creation. In sodoing it reveals one of the most distinctive Hebrew epic traditionsas seamless with the prevailing cultural norms of the ancientworld.

It is evident that Genesis 1:1-2:48 draws upon the analogy oftwo different modes of creation in presenting its account. Thereis the effortless word of God which orders the world into beingin an instant. This is then duplicated by a further account whichspeaks of the divine activity in a more earthy and basic way; thatis, in terms of craftsmanship and manual labour seemingly morein keeping with the creation account of the Yahwist (J) in Genesis2—3. The verbs used for this activity are 'to separate' (7"l"73ri;1:4, 7) and 'to make' (i"!ttfS7; 1:7, 16). This latter also occursin the opening line of the J narrative (Genesis 2:4b) and againwith reference to the garments Yahweh made for his erring crea-tures (3:21). Another verb which seems to correspond in meaningwith the simple word 'make', yet is restricted in priestly tradition(P) to the divine activity and is usually translated as 'create', is

.1 It is worth noting that not only does the divine word have

1 The outstanding features of NT3 are that it is only used with God as subject,and never has the accusative of the material from which things are constructed. It isobviously significant in the places where it is used in the Genesis 1 narrative. Thatis in 1:1 at the very beginning, in the formation of the great sea monsters (v. 21), inthe making of humankind (v. 27) and again at the end (2:3). Yet XT3 correspondsin many ways with the 'work' account of creation. J. Morgenstern, 'The Sourcesof the Creation Story—Genesis 1:1-2:43', AJSL. Vol. XXXVI no. 3 (1920),pp. 169-212, placed it in his 'sabbath' tradition. Clearly in Genesis 2:3 it iscomplementary to and not in opposition to the idea of making (HC57).Whereas in 2Isaiah NT3 is applied to God's actions in the present, for P its use is restricted todescribing God's creative action at the beginning. It has a deliberate andconsidered significance when it occurs in P, but this falls short of creatio exnihilo. It is best understood in the context of the alternative verbs 'separate' and'make'.

© Oxford University Press 2000[Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 51, Pt. 2, October 2000]

at Durham

University Library on N

ovember 21, 2011

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

442 JAMES E. ATWELLa foundational significance for the whole of priestly theology,2 butso also does the concept of separation. Both traditions of creationby word and by work are therefore integral to the whole priestlyscheme.

The question arises: do we have here two distinct traditionsabout creation with their own 'tradition history' which havebeen combined? F. Schwally4 in 1906 argued that the two typesof creation in Genesis 1 are contradictory and therefore musthave separate tradition histories. This suggestion was taken upand thoroughly examined by J. Morgenstern.5 He gave priorityto what he called the 'divine fiat' version of the creation narrative,over against the manufacturing version which he called the 'sab-bath' version. The 'divine fiat' narrative he took to consist ofeight divine commands which form the basis of the Genesis nar-rative. These, he envisaged, were cast in a pure form with text-book evenness. This material, he thought, had been supplementedby rather rugged secondary material which, unlike Schwally, hedid not reckon had ever been a tradition of its own. The intentionwas to popularize the rather scholastic text. This secondary mater-ial he labelled 'sabbath' as he supposed the divine rest to relate tothe exhausting procedure of the more physical labours. Thescheme of a week he connected with this supplementary material,

The priestly creation account represents a charter that stands over all sub-sequent sacred history. That account is not simply an isolated few verses thathappens to preface the priestly narrative. Rather it is securely bonded to all thatfollows. The picture of the creator in the opening chapter of Genesis is summarizedby the psalmist:

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Ps. 33:6)

But that same picture holds good for subsequent history also. God speaks and itcomes to pass. Whether it is the instruction to Abraham to circumcise him 'that isborn in thy house' (Genesis 17.13) which is deliberately and carefully fulfilled a fewverses later (v. 23), or whether it is the instruction to Moses in the detail of thesetting up of the tabernacle (Exodus 40:1 ff.) which concludes: 'Thus did Moses,according to all that the Lord commanded him, so did he' (Exodus 40:16), the wordof God, as a matter of central priestly theology, never returns to him unfulfilled.

Things need to be regulated, ordered, put in their place. Not least is this trueof the cult which distinguishes Israel from the nations Within the cult Israelmust be separated from her uncleanness (Leviticus 15:31 ff.). Aaron and his sonsmust be set apart from the children of Israel (Leviticus 22:2) and the Levites mustbe separated (V'Hnn) from among the children of Israel (Numbers 8 14). The readeris face to face in the subsequent narrative with the selfsame concept of separationthat permeates the first chapter of Genesis. It is part of the 'overture' effect ofGenesis 1:1—2:48 in relation to the whole priestly work noted by C. Westermann.

4 Schwally, 'Die bibhsehen Schopfungsberichte', ARW 9 (1906), pp. 159-75.J. Morgenstern, op cit

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 443and also the motif of God declaring his work good as it envisagesthe possibility of failure.

M. Lambert6 reversed Morgenstern's assumptions as to whichof the two accounts should be considered the prior, and whichsupplementary. The matter was taken up again by G. von Radin his attempt to identify two literary strands throughout the Pnarrative. He related his two strands to the two separate creationaccounts, 'action account' A and 'command account' B. Von Rad'sattempt marks the end of any real hope that literary criticismmight yield up a solution to the problem of sources in Genesis i.In his commentary von Rad himself makes only passing referenceto this endeavour.

W. H. Schmidt has turned to 'tradition history' for a way outof the impasse. He believes the failure of literary criticism makes itclear that there are not two distinct traditions about creation withtheir own prehistory. There is one single line of development.However he does conclude that the account of creation by actionmust be primary, and that one can identify what seem to be theoldest elements in the tradition. But he would still stress thatthe 'priestly mind' is evident not simply in the command accountwith the oldest elements, as it were, surgically removed. It isalso there in the way the priestly tradents have over the genera-tions selected, developed and shaped the old material. Let ustake as our starting point for investigation those elements whichSchmidt identifies as at the source of a long period of priestlytransmission:

[1:2] And the earth was waste and void, and there was darkness over thegreat deep. And the spirit of God hovered over the waters.[4] And God separated the light from the darkness.[7] God made the firmament and separated the waters beneath the firma-ment from the waters above the firmament.[9] (according to the Greek translation): And the waters under heavengathered themselves into one meeting-place, and the mainland becamevisible.[12] The earth brought forth green herbs, which yielded seed ... andtrees which yielded fruit with seeds.[16] God made the two great lights, the greater to rule by day, and thelesser to rule by night, and the stars; and God placed them in the firma-ment of heaven.

6 M. Lambert, 'A Study of the First Chapter of Genesis', HUCA 1 (11)24).pp. 3-12.

G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch, BWANT 65, Stuttgart (1934).8 W. H. Schmidt, Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, Neukirchen

(1067).

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

444 JAMES E. ATWELL[21] And God created the great sea animals, and the whole swarm of livingcreatures, with which the waters swarm ... and all winged creatures.[25] And God made the wild animals ... the cattle ... and all of the creep-ing things of the earth.[26-27] Then God said: Let us make men in our image, so they willresemble us, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven, thecattle, and all the wild animals on earth, and every creeping thing thatcreeps upon the earth. And God created man in his image; in the imageof God he created him.[2:2] And God rested (?).9

We can usefully ask two questions of the text in this form. Thesetwo questions are:

1. Where did the original cosmology come from? and2. How does the patterning of seven imposed upon the acts of

creation relate to the tradition history of Genesis 1 ? We maythen consider the further question:

3. What is the theological thrust of the narrative as it now stands?

I. T H E O R I G I N A L C O S M O L O G Y

Where did the original cosmology come from?

/ . A Comparison of the Priestly Creation Narrative with theCosmology of Ancient Mesopotamia

The template which is normally held up against the priestlycosmology for comparison is that of ancient Mesopotamian reli-gion, and here particularly the work known as Enuma Elish. W. H.Schmidt declares: 'The tradition behind Genesis is closelyrelated to the Babylonian epic of creation, the Enuma Elish.'Enthusiasm for comparison with ancient Mesopotamia is fuelledpartly by the evidence for comparisons in other areas of the

9 Ibid., p. 161. The translation is from B. Otzen et al. (eds), Myths in the OldTestament London (1980), pp. 29 f. English translation from Myter 1 Del gamleTestamente, Copenhagen (19762). Otzen himself supports Schmidt's endeavour'Of course, such a division of the text should be accepted only with the greatest ofreservations, but there can hardly be any doubt that most of the elements Schmidthas removed belong to the priestly redaction.' op. cit., p. 30. Westermann is alsopositive: 'Schmidt's study is an important step forward.' Genesis 1-11: ACommentary, London and Minneapolis (1984), p. 83 [translation from secondGerman edition, Neukirchen-Vluyn (1976)].

1 W. H. Schmidt, Introduction to the Old Testament (London, (1984), p. 102.English translation from Einfiihrung in das Alte Testament, (1979, 1982 ).

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 445primeval text, and partly by the momentum established byH. Gunkel.11 Less emphasis has been accorded to comparisonwith Egyptian cosmology. It is the conviction of this study thatinvestigation there provides significant contours for comparison.

Let us first investigate the more usual comparison. What exactlyare the resemblances between the priestly creation account andMesopotamian parallels, particularly Enuma Elish? A. Heidel hasdiscussed those elements of the priestly creation tradition that,in his judgement, show possible parallels with Enuma Elish. Heconcludes:In fact, the divergences are much more far-reaching and significant thanare the resemblances, most of which are not any closer than we wouldexpect to find in any two more or less complete creation versions ... Butthe identical sequence of events as far as the points of contact areconcerned is indeed remarkable. This can hardly be accidental.12

The points of contact and their order are presented by Heidel intable-form as follows (the numbering is our own): 13

Enuma Elish[i] Divine spirit and cosmic

matter are coexistent andcoeternal.

[2] Primaeval chaos; Ti'dmatenveloped in darkness

[3] Light emanating from thegods.

[4] The creation of the firma-ment.

[5] The creation of dry land.[6] The creation of the

luminaries.[7] The creation of man.[8] The gods rest and celeb-

rate.

GenesisDivine spirit creates cosmicmatter and exists indepen-dently of it (1:2).The earth a desolate waste,with darkness covering thedeep {t'hom) (1:2).Light created.

The creation of the firmament.

The creation of dry land.The creation of the lumin-aries.The creation of man.God rests and sanctifies theseventh day.

" H. Gunkel, Schbpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Gottingen, 1X95),asserts the Babylonian origin of the priestly creation narrative. He allowed fordependence upon an intermediate Hebrew poetic recension of the Marduk mythwhich used the divine name Yahweh.

12 A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago, 19512), p. 130. E. A. Speiser,Genesis, Anchor Bible (New York, 1964), p. 9 accepts Heidel's conclusions asproven.

13 A Heidel, op. cit., p. 129

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

446 JAMES E. ATWELLThe correspondence between the items designated [i] is general

rather than specific. The idea that the gods developed from withinthe raw material of creation is indeed standard in the ancient NearEast. Where the pre-creation condition was pictured as a wateryabyss it was deemed to contain the origin of the gods as well as theorigin of the natural world. The two were reckoned as coexistent.If Genesis 1:2 should be taken as a description of the primevalcondition prior to creation then it may also be contrasted withEnuma Elish. In the Enuma Elish tradition the hallmark of theprimeval ocean is its torpor; the sleep of the primeval deities iseventually disturbed by the noise of the younger gods. There isno real parallel to the dynamic 'Spirit of God' as one element ofthe primeval condition distinct from its other qualities.

In the same way [2] is also a general point relating to ancientNear Eastern myth in general rather than Enuma Elish in particu-lar. It is hard to think of any other way an account of creation inthe ancient Near East could begin if it were not to commencewith a description of the pre-existent formless condition. This ishardly remarkable. W. G. Lambert, who has reassessed the implica-tions of correspondence between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish,observes that a watery beginning is to be found elsewhere incosmogonies of other peoples. He further dismisses the linguis-tic correspondence between the Hebrew Dlilfi fhom (masculine)without the article in Genesis 1:2 and the personified Tiamat(feminine) in the Akkadian epic as not significant: 'The etymolo-gical equivalence is of no consequence, since poetic allusions tocosmic battles in the O.T. use Yam and fhom indiscriminately.'Although 'darkness' is an explicit feature of Genesis 1:2, it is notso in Enuma Elish. It has to be surmised by Heidel from the accountof Berossus. There is, therefore, little of real identity upon whichto construct a specific relationship in item [2].

As regards [3], the claim to find a correspondence betweenlight emanating from the gods, which is at most an incidentalitem to be deduced from the Babylonian narrative, and the crea-tion of light in Genesis 1 which is definitive for the whole narra-tive, is not convincing. There is no real linkage of commonpurpose and direction.

Heidel points to the creation of the firmament [4] and the crea-tion of dry land [5] for the next two items of correspondence.The narrative resemblance is due to the nature of ancient NearEastern creation mythology. The division of heaven and earth, a

14 W. G. Lambert, 'A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis',JTSNS, 16(1965), p. 293.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 447single act with a double consequence, is the primary motif ofalmost every cosmology of the ancient Near East. The identicalsequence is therefore no indication of any relationship betweenthe two different accounts beyond their common provenancewithin the ancient Near East. Any justification of a specific corre-spondence between Enuma Elish and the priestly creation accountwill need to go beyond this general observation.

W. G. Lambert does draw attention to what he recognizes as asignificant resemblance between the two accounts. He maintainsthat the act of dividing cosmic waters does yield up a valid com-parison with Enuma Elish, and that there are no other examplesin the ancient Near East at that period. Against that we mightpress the significance of 'division' for priestly theological reflec-tion. It does seem that a precedent for the application of the con-cept of division to the primeval waters may have been closerat hand than Mesopotamia. The verb translated by the RV as'broken up' (S?p3) in the P flood narrative (Genesis 7:11) seemsto be part of an ancient poetic tradition of Canaanite origin. It wit-nesses to a local vocabulary which speaks of 'cleaving' or 'divid-ing' waters. The same verb occurs with those associations inPsalm 74:15: 'Thou didst cleave fountain and flood'. By extensionit comes to be used in the 'mythicization' of the rescue at the Red(Reed) Sea.15

In Enuma Elish the particular application of the given creationpattern is the division of Tiamat's watery carcass into two pieceswhich creates heaven and earth, although some 'fixing' by thedeity in both areas is then necessary. In fact the priestly creationaccount is less straightforward. The creation of heaven and earthremains an important and primary twin concept, as the openingverse (1:1) reminds us, but the management of the waters ismore complex. In addition to the account of the 'dividing' ofthe waters (v. 6) which creates the heavens, and has its parallelin Enuma Elish, it contains a separate stage of the 'gathering' ofwaters (v. cj) which reveals dry land. This is a point of dissimilar-ity with Enuma Elish. W. G. Lambert connects this latter traditionto the myth of the Sumero-Babylonian god Ninurta who holdsback the 'mighty waters'.16 Perhaps we need look no furtherthan Psalm i o ^ f f for a parallel. The provenance of that psalmmust concern us later in this discussion. Certainly the manage-ment of the waters in the Priestly creation account does notsimply replicate that of Enuma Elish.

15 Exodus 14:16, 21; Isaiah 63:12.16 Lambert, op. cit., p. 296.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

448 JAMES E. ATWELLOnce again, the resemblance with Enuma Elish identified under

points [4] and [5] proves on investigation to be more about ashared ancient Near Eastern context than any real identity.There is a significant divergence in detail as regards the manage-ment of the waters which W. G. Lambert connects to Meso-potamian tradition more generally, although local Canaaniteparallels can be adduced. The parallel with Psalm 104 will haveto be considered later.

The creation of the luminaries [6] is not specific to Enuma Elish,indeed again we can compare Psalm 104:19. However Babylonianinfluence does appear evident in the commission they are given to'rule the day' and 'rule the night'. This does seem to reflect a pre-vious stage in the tradition history when it was conceived that theheavenly bodies controlled the fates which in turn govern humanexistence. Heidel remarks in particular about the coincidence ofthe order in Genesis and Enuma Elish in that neither places theheavenly bodies 'immediately after the formation of the sky'.17

Certainly we shall have cause to remark on the odd placing of thecreation of the luminaries in Genesis 1, but there seem to begood reasons of internal structure in the priestly narrative fortheir occurrence at the particular point at which they are narrated.The explanation does not lie in an external influence whether fromEnuma Elish or elsewhere. The interest of [6] therefore is that wecan detect an influence from Babylonian ideas as a whole, but notnecessarily Enuma Elish specifically.

The episode of the creation of human beings [7] is hardlyevidence for any close parallel. This act is likely to come last inany creation account. The only similarities between Enuma Elishand Genesis would be that the one sees human beings createdfrom the blood of a guilty god, and the other in the divineimage. But the similarities are not very close. Moreover, the pur-poses for which they are created are quite different: in the oneaccount for slavery and in the other to exercise dominion. Thetwo accounts do not appear to come from the same stable.

For the final correspondence [8], namely rest, we turn again toW. G. Lambert. He declares: 'Here Mesopotamia does not failus'.1 He points out that the rest of the gods after the creationof humanity is a consistent theme of ancient Mesopotamianmyth, of which the Enuma Elish is one witness.

Our conclusion is evident. The correspondences in orderbetween the priestly creation narrative and Enuma Elish, as

1 A. Heidel, op. cit., p. 130.W. G. Lambert, op. cit., p. 297.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 449defined by Heidel, are not striking. There are some potentialresonances of Babylonian ideas as a whole, most convincingly inthe reference to the luminaries. The correspondence in order isas follows: the starting point is the watery primeval deep,heaven and earth are established consequent upon an act of divi-sion, further acts of creation include the luminaries and human-kind, divine rest is announced. That order of events does nomore than witness to a general ancient Near Eastern backgroundto both accounts.

2. A comparison of the Priestly Creation Narrative with theCosmology of Ancient Egypt

We may now turn to ancient Egyptian cosmology. It is neces-sary to enquire whether the specific comparison of the priestlycreation account with Egyptian sources yields any interestingresemblances or fruitful insights. In order to do this the initialtask must be to establish the broad outline of Egyptian creationtraditions. These may then be held up for more detailed com-parison with the oldest elements of the priestly creation text asidentified by Schmidt.

In ancient Egypt, throughout the historical period, there werethree main centres where particular claims about the creation,or the 'First Time' as the Egyptians preferred to call it, weremade. These were Heliopolis, Memphis and Hermopolis. Funda-mental to all three were certain basic assumptions about thewatery abyss, known as the 'Nun', and the 'Primeval hill'. Theanalogy of the watery deep was provided by the Nile; its annualinundation flooded the Nile valley which seemed to be overtakenagain by watery formlessness. As the waters subsided the hillocksbegan to appear, their slimy mud glistening in the sunshine, richwith fertile potential.

The most influential creation tradition was that devised by thetheologians of the sun-god Re at Heliopolis. They identified Rewith the local god Atum. Atum was 'the great he-she';1 thesource of creation, he took his stand on the primeval hillock.He was identified with the majestic sun-god Re who rose everymorning over an ordered world as a sort of re-enactment of theFirst Time. The Egyptian mind from the establishment of theHeliopolitan religion onwards never failed to be fascinated bythe way the rising sun coaxed the order of the natural world intolife. The petals of the lotus flower opened, the birds flew, the fish

Coffin Texts 136

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

450 JAMES E. ATWELLdarted in the river, humans went to their work and darkness wasdriven out.

Memphis was the ancient capital of a united upper and lowerEgypt. Its local god was named Ptah; throughout Egyptian historyhe remained one of the few candidates for the office of high god.Originally a chthonic deity, in one of his aspects he is actuallyequated with the primeval hill. Numerous inscriptions in theTheban temples of the Greek period record him as a craftsmanor smith who works in metal. The Shebaka Stone famouslyrecords unequivocally the claim for Ptah of creation by the word.

At Hermopolis the qualities of the primeval ocean seem to havebeen personified in terms of four pairs of gods—the Ogdoad orthe Eight. The antiquity of this tradition is witnessed by theancient name of the place which was 'Eight Town' (Shmun in

Coptic) given in heiroglyphics as _ _ ^ ^ © . These primeval

deities were male and female forms of four different features ofthe watery abyss.These primeval deities were imagined to haveforms that were appropriate to creatures of mud and slime; themales were credited with frogs' heads and the females with headslike serpents. Their achievement came to be understood as thecreation of light, from which the known world could emerge.

These three traditions, although distinct, did not develop with-out mutual interaction as their shared characteristics indicate.Certainly by the time of the New Kingdom when it was fashion-able to equate the major deities, Amun, Re and Ptah, in a sortof trinity,20 the great creation traditions were harmonized also.Inevitably there remained conspicuous seams and incongruities.

Let us return again to the starting point of our investigationin the text as identified by Schmidt. His omission of the veryfirst verse of Genesis i from the primary material has a signific-ant interpretative effect. It leaves verse 2 unqualified, and con-sequently presents it as in toto a description of the pre-creationcondition. Only subsequent to verse 2 does the initiative of crea-tion commence. If this is indeed the true nature of verse 2 in thefull biblical text it is a very important point to establish if one is tounderstand and interpret the verse and its significance correctly.Such an interpretation would make it impossible to understandthe final description of the primeval state 'and the spirit of Godmoved upon the face of the waters' as in some way adversative

20 The Hymn of a Thousand Strophes, IV, 21 and 22, Pap. Leiden, I, 350.Translation from W. Beyerlm (ed), Near Eastern ReligiousTexls (London, 1978),P- 25

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 451and contrasting that element over against the unformed primevalstate, as, for instance, U. Cassuto argues: 'Although the earth waswithout form or life, and all was steeped in darkness, yet abovethe unformed matter hovered the JIIT (ruah) of God, the sourceof light and life'.21

It seems impossible to establish the relationship of Genesis 1:1with the following verse on grounds of syntax alone. For instanceE. A. Speiser states: 'The first word of Genesis, and hence the firstword in the Hebrew Bible is vocalized as bere'sit. Grammatically,this is evidently in the construct state'.22 But W. Eichrodt reachesthe opposite conclusion: 'If we understand b're'sit in Genesis 1:1as absolute, this is not an arbitrary judgement'. Von Rad makeshis decision that v. i is a main clause on theological grounds.P. Humbert assumes the construct state, but still leaves thedescription of the pre-creation condition in toto as primary: 'Leseul traduction correcte est done: "Lorsque Dieu commenca decreer l'univers, le monde etait alors en etat chaotique" \ 2 5

The valid point is made by C. Westermann that comparisonwith Enuma Elish and other creation narratives clearly identifiesa traditional pattern that commences 'When there was notyet ..." and describes in negative terms the situation before thecreation. On grounds of comparison with ancient material hetherefore separates off Genesis 1:1 as a sort of prelude. This argu-ment seems decisive. Genesis 1:2 is correctly understood as in totoa description of the pre-creation condition. Any real parallel willneed to throw some light on how the spirit of God can be includedwithin that category.

Genesis 1, Enuma Elish and Egyptian tradition have this incommon. They describe the origin of the world as watery, andthe pre-creation state in negative terms. It is helpful to hold upfor comparison from ancient Egypt the creation tradition fromHermopolis. At Hermopolis, we have noted, the qualities of the

21 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I, ET (Jerusalem"</>'), P- 24. [Hebrew (1944)].

22 E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p . 12.2 W . Eichrodt , ' I n the Beginning: A Cont r ibu t ion to the Interpre ta t ion of the

First W o r d of the Bible ' , r eproduced from Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays inhonor of James Muilenburg ( N e w York, 1962), in B. W . Anderson (ed.), Creation inthe Old Testament (Phi ladelphia and L o n d o n , 1984), p . 72.

24 G. von Rad, Genesis ( L o n d o n , 1961), p . 48 [translation of Der erste BuchMose, Genesis (Got t ingen , 1958)].

2 5 P. Humbert, 'Trois notes sur Genese 1', Interpretations ad VetusTestamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel missae (Os lo , 1955), p p . 8 5 - 9 6 .

2 6 C . W e s t e r m a n n , Genesis 1-11: A Commentary ( L o n d o n and M i n n e a p o l i s ,1984), p. 94 [translation from second German edition, Neukirchen-Vluyn (1976)].

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

452 JAMES E. ATWELLprimeval deep were personified by four pairs known as 'the Eight'.Its watery state was expressed in the pair known as Nun and hispartner Naunet.27 The deep was further described in negativeterms through the divine partners Huh and Hauhet who representthe 'boundlessness' of the great deep.

i n m inn ('without form and void') in Genesis 1:2 is part ofthat general witness; this interpretation has been challenged byD. T. Tsumura. He denies that these words should be under-stood as a sort of technical description of the chaotic state. Herefers them simply to the earth (f"1N v. 2) which is as yet infertileand uninhabited. In his linguistic analysis he underestimates thesignificance of the context of Genesis 1:2. He does not allowthat the 'not yet' pre-creation condition of earth defies descriptionand in some sense redefines any vocabulary brought to it. It is truethat inn occurs on its own a number of times in the HebrewScriptures and describes the desert waste. However the additionof iriDI forms a sort of hendiadys,29 which is perhaps a specificdescription for ideas associated with the primeval deep (cf.Jeremiah 4:23). It is identified by both Gunkel and Cassuto aspossibly an ancient poetic expression describing the primevaldeep. Its concept is basically of formlessness.

Genesis 1:2 further identifies darkness as of the essence of thepre-creation condition. This holds true throughout the ancientNear East. A. Heidel argues: 'In Enuma Elish this conception isnot expressly stated, but we can deduce it from the fact thatTi'dmat, according to Berossus ... was shrouded in darkness'.30

For knowledge of the tradition of Hermopolis with its four pairs of primevaldeities we are indebted to the priestly theologians of the Greek and Roman periodwho left inscriptions on the temple walls at Dendera, Edfu, Philae and particularlyThebes. The most telling piece of evidence for the antiquity of the tradition isthe name of Hermopolis itself, in Coptic Shmun (Eight Town). From the timeof the Old Kingdom when the deity Thoth is referred to as lord of his town, it is of'the (town of) Eight'. The Eight are twice invoked in Coffin Text Spell 76 survivingfrom the Middle Kingdom.

28 D. T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2, JSOTSupplement 83 (Sheffield, 1989). He takes the mention of 'earth' in Genesis 1:2as definitive for the significance of the creation account (p. 162). The desolateand empty earth (1.2) becomes a place of vegetation (1:11) and habitation (animals1 24, and humans 1:26). However, rather than earth as described in v. 2, it is thefirmament (v. 6) and the earth (v. 9) which as the totality of heaven and earth(cf. 1:1) is definitive for the whole account. The vision of the priestly creationaccount is more than utilitarian, and is not comprehended in simply creating anenvironment around human beings.

E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5.30 A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, p 101.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 453John Day points out that this was true of Canaanite concepts aswell. He states:That the connection between Leviathan and darkness goes back toCanaanite mythology may be surmised from the Ugaritic texts, where inCTA 6.vi .44 ff. (=KTU 1.6.v 1.45 ff.) we read that Kothar-and-Hasis, whoit is hoped will defeat the dragon (tan=L,eviathan), was also the friend ofthe sun-goddess Shapash, who is apparently threatened by the dragon.31

However, it is in Egypt that we find explicit witnesses to darknessas a feature of the primeval deep. In the tradition of Hermopolisthe third of the four divine pairs that personify the chaotic state,known as Kuk and Kauket, represent precisely thick darkness.

The real problem of interpretation that we face in trying tounderstand Genesis 1:2 lies in the description of the final elementof the verse. How can the 'spirit of God' be understood as adescription of the original, unformed primeval state? A way outof this dilemma could be to translate D^H^X fliT as 'wind ofGod', 2 but B. S. Childs3 denies this possibility on the groundsthat such a meaning occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Scrip-tures. Against this may be argued that Genesis 1:2 is a specialcase, and so perhaps parallels do not hold. John Day appeals tothe presumed Canaanite background to Genesis 1. He arguesthat we meet here in muted form the wind with which Ba'alequipped himself for the battle with the sea monster, and con-sequently already have an intrusion of the power of creation. Hedraws a parallel with the turning point in the P flood narrativewhere the wind of God blows over the earth and the waters sub-side (Genesis 8:1). But decisive for our investigation must be thatall indications seem to make it unacceptable to break off thisphrase from the total description of 'When there was not yet',and give it an adversative sense. Any acceptable interpretationmust be able to explain it in the context of a series of representa-tions of the primeval abyss.

Another suggestion is that of E. A. Speiser who interprets thewhole phrase as an 'awesome wind', taking DTI7X in a superlativesense.34 This interpretation is adopted in some modern transla-tions including the NEB: 'and a mighty wind swept over the

31 J. Day, God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge, 1985), p . 45.3 2 As does H . M . Orlinsky, ' T h e Plain Meaning of R U A H in Gen . 1:2', JQR,

NS, 48 (1957/58), pp . 174-82. He notes in part icular the significance of the fourwinds, created by Anu, in enabling M a r d u k to t r i umph in the Enuma Elish. He alsodraws attention to the use of m i in J ' s primeval history (Gen . 3:8).

33 B. S. Chi lds , Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, S tud ies in BiblicalTheology, 27 (London, i960), p . 35.

3 4 E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p . 5.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

454 JAMES E. ATWELLsurfce of the waters'. [Included under a marginal note in REB].But that solution strains the text and leaves DTI7X unrelated toits other occurrences in the adjoining verses. H. Gunkel lookedto the verb ^ m , to which he gave the sense of 'brood', for a solu-tion. He traced the original significance to a Phoenician myth ofthe cosmic egg. Neither suggestion seems to resolve ourdilemma. We still have to look elsewhere.

We have noted how three of the pairs from the creation tradi-tion of Hermopolis correspond with the description in Genesis1:2. Can the fourth pair throw any light on our present enigma?Here K. Sethe has boldly maintained that the witness from theGreek period to Amun and Amaunet as the fourth pair of theEight is to be regarded as a late witness to ancient tradition. Heseizes on the creative combination of Amun, the 'hidden one',as primeval deity and Amun the mysterious high god of the NewKingdom represented in the unseen but dynamic power of thewind. According to Sethe's picture, therefore, Amun and hispartner represent the dynamic quality of the primeval abyss.Amun is that quality which overcomes the torpor, languidnessand stagnation of the primeval waters:

At first calm and motionless, hovering over the sluggish primeval oceanNun, invisible as a nullity, it (the air) could at a given moment be setin motion, apparently of itself, could churn up the Nun to its depths,so that the mud lying there could condense into solid land and emergefrom the flood waters, first as a 'high hillock' or as an 'Isle of Flames' nearHermopolis.If this case put by K. Sethe can be maintained, then, at a stroke,the final element in Genesis 1:2 makes complete sense as adescription of the pre-creation condition. Here only in the ancientNear East do we find a precedent that might enable us to makesense of the dynamic spirit of God as actually a feature of theprimeval abyss.

There is, however, a problem in connection with the witnessto the fourth pair of the Ogdoad of Hermopolis. Although thePyramid Texts do present an early witness to Amun and Amaunetas primeval deities, there is no early explicit witness to them asmembers of the Ogdoad. Further, that they may have been inserted

35 This solution of Gunkel seems to be adopted by J. Skinner, Genesis, p. 18.However it is generally agreed now that the word involves movement (cf. Deut32:11, 'hover' or 'flutter'). The Ugaritic cognate 'describes a form of motion asopposed to a state of suspension or rest', E. A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 5.

6 K. Sethe, 'Amun und die Acht Urgotter von Hermopolis', APAW 4 (1929),p. 42. paragraph 80. Translation from S Morenz, Egyptian Religion, p. 176.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 455into the Eight during the long development of the Hermopolitantradition seems likely. They represent one variant pair amongstother candidates for completing the cosmology; a pair that hascome to predominate in the late witness of the temple texts ofthe Greek period. However, it is known that Amun in his formas Amun-Re was associated with Hermopolis from the 18thDynasty.3 The evidence leads us to conclude that any judgementabout the position of Amun and Amaunet within the Hermopoli-tan system in the Old Kingdom or the Middle Kingdom cannot bemade with certainty. The case remains open. But it does seem areasonable assumption that by the time of the New Kingdomthe creative connections which Sethe identifies are likely to havebeen made at Hermopolis. That is, the combination of Amun asprimeval deity, representing hiddenness in the sense of nullityor negligibility, with the Theban characteristics of hiddenness,as the invisible power of the wind, would have taken place. Inthat case we may say that the cosmology of Hermopolis enabledAmun to be identified not only as the dynamic principle of exist-ence, as breath or wind, but also the dynamic quality of the prim-eval abyss. In all likelihood it is Amun who is the source of theimagery of DTI7N mT in Genesis i:2.39

We may note a further significant parallel between the cosmo-logy of Hermopolis and that of Genesis i which leads us on to the

37 See H Altenmuller, 'Achtheit' in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon derAgyptologie 1 (Weisbaden, 1975), column 56. The alternative candidates for thefourth pair of the Hermopolitan cosmology throw further light on the speculationabout the primeval abyss. The couples in this fourth personification of the primevaldeep, like a quantum zero, hover between existence and non-existence. Tenemuand his consort represent a quality of disappearance. Niau expresses a negativequality in the sense of void or empty. Gereh describes lack or deficiency. In asmuch as Amun and his consort Amaunet were a personification of this fourth pairof the Ogdoad the quality of 'hiddenness' should also be understood in a negativesense such as invisibility, perhaps almost negligibility.

38 G. Roeder, 'Zwei Hieroglyphische Inschriften Aus Hermopolis', ASAE52 (i()54)> PP 3t5-i8-

3 This conclusion is shared by R. Kilian, 'Genesis 1:2 und die Urgotter vonHermopolis', VT 16 (1966), pp. 420-38. Gustav Jequier, 'Les QuatreCynocephales', in Samuel A. B. Mercer (ed.), Egyptian Religion, vol. 2, no. 3(New York, 1934) pp. 78-86, denies that Sethe has proved Amun to have beenoriginally numbered among the Eight of Hermopolis. However he is convinced bythe correspondence of Genesis 1:2 with the four personifications of the primevaldeep at Hermopolis and regards as proven the dependence of Genesis 1:2 onthe theology of Hermopolis. Creation takes place, according to Jequier's inter-pretation, from the inert primordial material under the influence of 'une forceetrangere' (to be distiguished from the four pairs of primeval deities) who is thegod Thoth. According to this interpretation, his is the hidden presence behindthe opening of the Genesis creation narrative.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

456 JAMES E. ATWELLnext stage in Schmidt's oldest material (v. 4). The achievement ofthe Eight certainly came to be understood as the creation of light.They were 'the fathers and mothers who created light'. It isreflected in the name of the primeval hill at Hermopolis, 'Isle ofFlames'. The first act of creation was the emergence of lightfrom the primeval gloom. It is a further confirmatory indicatorof the relevance of the tradition of Hermopolis in understandingthe priestly creation narrative.

The separating of the waters (v. 7) was a feature whichW. G. Lambert found to unite Genesis and Enuma Elish. In asmuch as it points to the original creation as an act of division orseparation, then this general notion of the ancient Near Eastoccurs in Egypt too. Geb and Nut, the earth god and theheaven goddess, are separated by their father Shu. The separationof waters is involved in this imagery of the raising up of the sky.Shu represents the atmosphere between heaven and earth whichexists, according to one popular universal concept, as a sort ofbubble in the universal primeval ocean. The separation of earthand heaven drives back the waters and creates the atmosphericspace. When the primeval waters are referred to as a pair, Nunand Naunet, this identifies the separated waters of the deepabove and below the ordered world. In this context J. P. Allendraws specific attention to the correspondence between thepriestly cosmology and that of ancient Egypt in the key signific-ance of the firmament or vault in both schemes. He refers to thelinguistic differentiation between the waters above and belowthe created world:

Both terms for the universe of waters that exist outside this world havein common the hieroglyph ^ ^, representing the vault of the sky.This vault is what keeps the waters from the world. The Pyramid Textsand the Coffin Texts speak of 'keeping the sky clear of the earth andthe waters'. The same image appears in the Hebrew account of creation(Gen. i:6-7).41

Schmidt's next element of primary tradition continues with v. 9.He adopts as the basis of his rendering the LXX in which thewaters themselves take the initiative and 'gather themselves intoone meeting place'. That nuance would well express the fertilityof the Egyptian Nun which actually gives birth to the primevalhill. The picture is in complete accord with Egyptian conceptswhere the emergence of the first piece of dry land as the waters

4 0 Theb T. 95c [Theban temple texts of the Greek and Roman period; seeK. Sethe APAW 4, (1929)].

41 J. P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt (New Haven, 1988), p . 4.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 457recede is a universal feature which has been absorbed into allcosmologies.4 It is based on the annual observation of the Nile'sinundation which flooded the entire river valley, and as its watersreceded the ground re-emerged with a cloak of rich fertile silt.

It may be that one should understand v. 16, the creation of theluminaries, as the next step in the original development of cosmicorder. In that case there would need to be some good reason inpriestly logic for the present form of the narrative which we shallhave to consider later. It makes more sense for the sun to precedenature. In Enuma Elish the creation of the heavenly bodies followsdirectly from the establishment of heaven and earth. In ancientEgypt the sun precedes everything else at the first dawn. How-ever, just as there is a certain tension in the Genesis i narrativebetween the creation of light initially and the heavenly bodiesonly subsequently, so in ancient Egypt there is a tension betweenRe identified with Atum the origin of all order, and Re born dailyof Nut, the sky goddess, as a subsequent if principal part of thatorder.

The sun and moon are referred to in Genesis 1:16 as 'greater'and 'lesser' lights. Many commentators have noted that thesecircumlocutions seem like a priestly device to avoid the mentionof names that had associations with deities of considerable influ-ence in the Mesopotamian world, and who were actually con-ceived of as exercising rule and dispensing the fates. Thedivinity of the sun in ancient Egypt, perhaps still reflected inPsalm 104, where in v.19 it is the subject of the verb 'to know'(57*V), would hardly have accorded with priestly theology either.This latter fact may have made this area of the tradition vulner-able, and open to alternative influences. In that case the Mesopo-tamian influence was most likely to have acted upon the Hebrewphase of the tradition. This section certainly reminds us thatdevelopments of thought in the ancient Near East are complexand influences from different major civilizations often inter-relate as cosmological patterns develop. In particular Canaanand Syria were well placed for absorbing influences from bothMesopotamia and the Nile valley.

Genesis 1:12, 21, 25 draws on a tradition that observes, articu-lates, classifies and values the mysterious order of the naturalworld. The world of living things is not created one by one, or two

42 In ancient Egypt, too, the earth had a power of its own; it could 'sprout forth'.The earth god Geb was often painted green to signify this. Osiris, too, representedthe fertility of the good earth as could Ptah.

For the relevance of Psalm 104 for the interpretation of the priestly creationaccount see below.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

458 JAMES E. ATWELLby two as they leave the ark, but rather in whole colonies as theyswarm (v. 21 Y~)V? ). There is a scientific interest in classification.A distinction is drawn between herbs and fruit trees: the one dis-persing seed, the other with the seed in it. Creatures of water, landand air are differentiated. Those of land are placed in three sub-groups. These are cattle, creepers, and beasts; that is, domesticanimals, reptiles, and wild animals.

From the sun' s rise on the first morning of creation, accordingto the Heliopolitan tradition of ancient Egypt, there issued forththe great complex order of nature, both vegetable and animal.Egypt rejoiced in a vision of the rich variety of species, of activitiesappropriate to day and night, of animals adapted to particularenvironments of land, sea, or air, and the mysterious powers ofprocreation hidden in seed or egg or womb. The temple walls ofthe Old Kingdom, the Onomastica of the Middle Kingdom andthe hymns of the New Kingdom present a united witness to thisvision of order and relationship in the natural world expressedin the significant concept Ma'at.

Ma'at stood for order in every area of existence. A goddess, shewas regarded as the daughter of Re; her symbol was a feather.Nun and Ma'at in a sense define each other as opposites. Nunrepresents watery formlessness, and Ma'at the gleaming orderof creation on the first morning as dawn breaks. Order wasthought to embrace society as well as nature and the physicalworld; politics and botany were related sciences. Judges werepriests of Ma'at and wore her emblem. When order referred tothat moral order of the world that rewards virtuous behaviour,then Ma'at came close to signifying harmony or even providence.In the context of nature's order Ma'at approximates to themodern concept of the ecological balance of nature. It is this lat-ter interpretation which is relevant in any comparison with theway nature is observed and categorized in the priestly creationnarrative.

In the sun temple of Nyuserre at Abu Sir the sun-god is hailedas 'Lord of Ma'at''. The significance of that is revealed in theChamber of the Seasons in which the seasons of 'inundation'and 'deficiency'(i.e. harvest) are represented by figures inhuman form, respectively female and male. Behind these figuresthe mural is divided horizontally by watercourses and here theactivities of each season are reproduced. The impression is of agreat catalogue identifying and recording the orderly and inter-related arrangement of natural phenomena; that is, things human,animal, and vegetable within their common environment. Thedaily activities of the agricultural life of the Nile valley are all

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN E G Y P T I A N SOURCE FOR G E N E S I S i 459

labelled and named. A glimpse is given by this excerpt from thedescription of von Bissing:Sous une etendue d'eau on voit un grand arbre auquel un homme asuspendu une gazelle qu'il est en train de decouper pour le repas despersonnes qui sont assises derriere lui, l'une de ces personnes porte a seslevres une large coupe. A gauche de l'arbre et sur deux registres se tien-nent deux rangees d'animaux qui donnent naissance a leur petit dans uneregion remplie de vegetation et d'abres. II s'agit d'une vache sauvage,d'une antilope Mendes, d'une gazelle et d'un bouquetin a la rangee super-leure; en bas, c'est une panthere, une lionne tirant la langue ... ., et uneantilope, oryx leucoryx. L'inscription verticale qui se trouve devant cesanimaux doit, si je la comprends bien, se traduire ainsi: Marcher dans ledesert en donnant naissance, renouvelant tout.

T h e chick hatching in the egg is already the concern of the sun-god:La pi. XVIII est plus complexe: a droite, sur trois registres, trois pelicanssont en train de couver: il semble y avoir dans chaque nid trois oeufs qui

sont pres d'eclore si Ton en croit le signe i f j I des inscriptions.

VI11/The insistence that the divine civil service organized the naturalworld into a proper sequence and hierarchy on the model of thepharaoh's kingdom is typical of Egyptian thinking throughout itslong history. This sense of order permeating all existence andmanifest quite marvellously in the natural world enabled theEgyptians to observe and articulate nature's harmoniousness andinterrelatedness. All things exist in a sort of communion whichis broken only at great risk. It is clearly that selfsame inspirationthat encounters us in Genesis i: 12, 21, 25.46

The priestly comment which is not, one must assume, part ofthe original tradition, continually refers to the world in God'sjudgement as 'good' (3113). Here 'good' has certainly developedbeyond the primitive and experimental meaning of 'successful'as opposed to 'unsuccessful' which still lurks behind Genesis2:18. However, there is still a certain innocent joy behind the

4 4 F. W. F. von Bissing, 'La C h a m b r e des trois saisons du sanctuaire solaire duroi Rathoures (Ve Dynastie) a Aboursir ' , ASAE 53 (1956), p . 329.

45 Ibid. , p . 335-46 The author visited the Mastaba of Mereruka at Saqqara. Scenes of Egyptian

life depicted on the walls include a representation of the Nile with fish. Onobservation the fish are not standard pictograms; each one represents a differentspecies. The sense of encountering the inspiration behind the priestly creationaccount was tangible.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

460 JAMES E. ATWELLacclamation 'very good' in v. 31. Von Rad's understanding of thesignificance of this word accords well with the basic tradition andidentifies its true nature:The word contains less an aesthetic judgement than the designation ofpurpose and correspondence. (It corresponds, therefore, though withmuch more restraint to the content of Ps. 104:31; Ps. 104 tells not somuch of the beauty as of the marvellous purpose and order of creation.)

This correspondence between the original material and priestlyjudgement should remind us that in the choice of their raw mater-ial these circles had already acquired a vision able to be adaptedto their own. The balance, symmetry and detail of the Egyptianconcept of the created order, which was understood as seamlesswith the civil order of the kingdom under the pharaoh, wassympathetic to the priestly desire to separate and classify.

We must note that the comparison made by von Rad withPsalm 104 is not a casual one. There are a number of specificcomparisons that have been drawn between Genesis 1 and Psalm104. Light is a primary feature of the Almighty (v. 2a). The worldcomes about through the securing of the heavenly waters and thewaters under the earth. The heavenly firmament of Genesis 1:7 hasits equivalence in a heavenly tent (v. 2b). The foundations of theearth are laid in the waters (v. 5), and the earth appears whenthe waters recede. In the case of Psalm 104 they are driven back(vv. 6-8). Creation is firmly achieved without any lurking threatto the creator (v. 9). Here we leave the specific order that we findin Genesis 1, but all of its subsequent features may be identifiedin the psalm. There are the heavenly bodies marking the seasons(v. 19). There is the world of vegetation including trees (v. 16),and the aquatic world (v. 25). Fowls of the air find a mention inv. 12. Various provision is made for food, including different cat-egories for cattle and people (v. 14). Human labour and the alloca-tion of wine and bread for human welfare are also reflected upon.

Specific verbal similarities between Genesis 1 and Psalm 104are also recognizable. J. Day notes:With regard to verbal similarities, it may be noted that a considerableamount of common vocabulary is shared between Gen. 1 and Ps. 104.Particularly striking are the expression I'm6'adtm, found in the OldTestament only in Ps. 104:19 and Gen. 1:14 (both in connection with

47 Von Rad, Genesis, p. 52. For additional emphasis on the divine pronounce-ment see W. F. Albright, 'The Refrain "And God saw Ki Tob" in Genesis',Melanges Bibliques Rediges en Vhonneur de Andre Robert, Travaux de I'lnstitutCatholique de Paris 4 (1955), pp. 22-6. He translated the phrase in question: 'AndGod saw how good it was'.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR G E N E S IS i 461the luminaries), and the form hayet6, found in Ps. 104:11, 20 and Gen.1:24, and apart from the latter passage attested only in poetry in theOld Testament.48

Psalm 104, which could equally appropriately be classified withinthe biblical Wisdom corpus, provides us with a tool for reflectionon Genesis 1:1—2:4. Indeed, as we discuss below, P. Humbertargues that it is a sort of hymnic response to that text. J. Day49

argues in the reverse direction, that Genesis 1 is based on Psalm104. He rests his case on the supposedly more primitive natureof Psalm 104, and in particular the fact that it still explicitlycarries allusion to the divine conflict with chaos which hasvanished from Genesis 1. He does allow, but does not favour thepossibility, that it is conceivable that both Genesis 1 and Psalm104 could be dependent upon a single common tradition.

We have argued for an Egyptian background to Genesis 1, andsuch a background for Psalm 104 is not in dispute. The psalm issimilar in form to the Egyptian hymns of the New Kingdom. Inparticular it bears a distinct resemblance to Akenhaten's Hymnto Aten. The muted Canaanite-inspired divine conflict with thewaters we would see as no more than a cosmetic enhancementof Psalm 104 to bring it into line with prevailing local cultic con-ventions of the way creation is recounted. The Wisdom traditionwas international, but in its local manifestations used the namefor God from local tradition and adapted to local colour asregards the way that deity created. What remained a constantfeature was that creation for the Wisdom tradition, in contrastto cultic celebration, was always a completed event.

We would therefore see Psalm 104 and Genesis 1 as witnesses toa single common Egyptian-inspired tradition, but the absence ofconflict in Genesis 1 actually makes it the purer witness. Theattested closeness of Psalm 104 both to the Wisdom tradition andin particular to the Egyptian hymns of the New Kingdom can beused as a sort of commentary on the Genesis creation narrative.The psalm helps us to understand the inspiration and motivationbehind the Genesis narrative.

4 8 J. Day , God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, p . 5 1 .4 9 J. Day , God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, p p . 51 ff., and Psalms

(Sheffield, 1990), pp. 41 f. More generally on Psalm 104, Day summarises suc-cinctly: 'Psalm 104 is remarkable not only for the length of its concentration on thesubject of creation and its striking parallels with the Egyptian hymn to Aton byPharaoh Akhenaten, but also for the way that the order in [which] topics are treatedagrees with the order of creation in Genesis 1'. Psalms, p. 41.

s0 See Hans-Jurgen Hermisson, 'Observations on the Creation Theology inWisdom', in B. W. Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament, pp. 118-34.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

462 JAMES E. ATWELLWe may end our look at Psalm 104 by noting that it also

includes the progression of night and day (vv. 19-23), which isat least a point of contact with the P scheme. As creation wasachieved in a day in Egypt, this time period was most important,and conceived to be, in some sense, repeated each morning. In factv. 19 begins with the evening. If the sun rises on a gleaming orderof creation then the actual regenerative process while the sunbathes in the Nun is from dusk until dawn. This may be reflectedin P's cycle 'and evening and morning were the nth day'.51

Next in the primary material we come to the creation of humanbeings (vv. 26-7). Schmidt sees this as a unit with a differentprehistory.52 The opening: 'Let us make man ..." may well reflectthis, and in the original circumstance announce the decision of thedivine council to make human beings. It is reminiscent of thedivine reflection included by J in his narrative: 'Behold, the manis become as one of us, to know good and evil' (Gen. 3:22a).Both retain evidence of a similar archaic stage in their history oftransmission. However P is perhaps reflecting the plurality ofthe Ennead of ancient Egypt, rather than the creating deitiesof ancient Mesopotamia. P may have retained the plural form as a'deliberative' or perhaps because it has a less anthropomorphic ring.

Two specific things are said of human beings. Firstly that theyare in the 'image' (D/2J) and 'likeness' (mft7) of God, and sec-ondly that they are given dominion. Of the first ascription like-ness is the weaker concept; it occurs in Ezekiel's vision when hesees 'the likeness of four living creatures' (Ezekiel 1:5). It indicatesanalogy. Image has a greater sense of identity. It can mean a copy(1 Samuel 6:5) or occasionally an idol (Numbers 33:52 and 2 Kings11:18) or even a painting (Ezekiel 23:14). As regards dominion,this is quite strongly expressed. Humanity is to 'subdue' theearth. This is taken from the language of the treading of thewine press (Joel 4:13), and also the battlefield (Numbers 32:22,29; Joshua 18:1). This latter imagery even leads Brueggemannto extend the concept of 'human dominion' to the Israelite domin-ion of Palestine. If that is the case then P's more domestic andnationalistic concerns are concealed within the creation narrative.

51 For a discussion on the commencement of a day see H. R Stores, 'Does theDay Begin in the Evening or the Morning?', VT 16 (1966), pp. 460-75

5 2 W . H . S c h m i d t , Die Schopjungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, p . 128.53 Psalm 8 likewise witnesses to an identical tradition. Humanity is made (v. 5)

a 'little lower than DTI7X' and given dominion over the rest of creation. 'Thouhast put all things under his feet' (v. 6) is a strong concept also.

3 4 W. Brueggemann, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta, 19822),p. 109.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 463The dominion theme is repeated with more vehemence in Genesis9:2, with the associated 'fear' and 'dread' the animal world willhave of humanity in the new age of violence. We may note inthat context that human beings after the flood have not lost thedivine image. It is the ground for forbidding human bloodshed(Genesis 9:6).

Much ink has been spent on the nature of the divine image inhuman beings, and whether the emphasis is on a physical or spiri-tual resemblance. The linking of the divine image and dominionseems to point us in the direction of ancient Near Easternconcepts of kingship. The person of the king often provided inthe 'human being writ large' the means whereby the Wisdomtradition could bring human behaviour and human destiny underclose scrutiny. H. Wildberger draws attention to the form salmu(image) occurring in Babylonian civilization and its applicationto the king.53 However he notes that Egypt is richer in suchtexts.3 Indeed the king in Mesopotamia was never considereddivine in the way he was in ancient Egypt. The king, like his sub-jects, groped his way through life seeking guidance and directionfrom augury and sacrificial entrails for an understanding of thedivine will. In ancient Canaan, too, the king was more likely tobe accorded the wisdom of the 'primal man' than of a god inthe full sense. We may note also that the Mesopotamian assess-ment of human destiny was hardly compatible with any sense ofan indwelling divine image.

Egypt, however, is a different matter. There we discover thatthe pharaoh was acclaimed as divine: 'Thou art the living likenessof thy father Atum of Heliopolis for authoritative utterance (hu) isin thy mouth, understanding (sia') is in thy heart, thy speech isthe shrine of truth (Ma'at)'.57 Such descriptions were regularlyused of the god-king, who like his divine father at the first time,ruled with the companions of god at creation—Hu Sia' andMa'at—always beside his throne. When the king appeared onhis throne he was spoken of as the divine sun rising from theeast. When the pharaoh died, like the evening sun, he descendedto the horizon. This image was no hyperbole, but a literal under-standing of the god-king.

55 H Wildberger, 'Das Abbild Gottes, Gen. 1:26-3(1', TZ2.1 (1965), pp. 245-59.5 6 H. Wildberger, TZ 21 (1065), pp. 481-501.5 7 Kuban Stela II, 17-1S (Translation H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods,

p. 149). W. H. Schmidt, Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrijl, pp. 137 ffrefers the origin of the idea of the divine image to Egyptian court style whenreferring to the pharaoh, often linked to the concept of creation, and particularlyprevalent in the New Kingdom period.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

464 JAMES E. ATWELLIt is possible to trace a democratization of the funeral rites of

the pharaoh, which extended the identification of the king withOsiris to his nobles during the First Intermediate Period. It wouldnot therefore be surprising to find a democratization in somecircles of other royal qualities including the divine image. Indeedwe find in the Instructions for King Merikare evidence that thisconnection had been made for human beings in general: 'Theyare his images, who came forth from his body'.58 This wasnever the official Egyptian 'doctrine of humanity', but sometimesthe humanistic tradition of the Instructions might dream ofhumanity's royal destiny. The centrality of the Instructionswithin the Wisdom tradition of Egypt gave to humans and theirbehaviour an increasingly central emphasis. Indeed the implica-tion of the Wisdom-influenced narrative of Genesis 3 that themisdemeanour of human beings can have a calamitous effect onthe whole creation itself approaches hubris. Human beings arethere given a position of enormous and pivotal significance, notunlike the position of the pharaoh in ancient Egypt, whichcertainly corresponds to the royal dignity of Genesis 1:26-7.

If the divine image in human beings is taken from the Egyptianpharaoh, we certainly have a way into its meaning. No doubt themonarch would have been accorded physical beauty, as was thecase for the royal house even in Israel. But wisdom wouldhave been the primary quality; that for which Solomon prayedin such an exemplary way.6 It would have embraced know-ledge, discrimination and the potential for a righteous life. Thedivine image in Genesis 1 is not far from the enticement pre-sented to Adam when Eve stretched out her hand for the fruit:'... and you will be as God (DTI7X), knowing good and evil'(Genesis 3:5). Once again we detect the guiding hand of wisdomin presenting and reflecting upon the nature of human beings asthey are before God.

The final element in Schmidt's basic material is the rest of God(Genesis 2:2). This also finds a resonance in ancient Egypt. Thereit is not a release from toil for the gods brought about by the crea-tion of human beings as it is in Mesopotamia. Rather it is satisfac-tion at the conclusion of a job well done. It was said of Ptah ofMemphis: 'So Ptah rested after he had made all things and all the

58 Instructions for King Merikare, verse 132. See W. Beyerlin (ed.), Near EasternReligious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 46.

5 cf. 2 Samuel 14:25.60 1 Kings 3:5 ff.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 465words of god'.61 The translation in ANET renders 'rested' withan alternative translation 'was satisfied'. The rest of God in theEgyptian context relates well to the priestly insistence that theworld in God's judgement was 'good' (D113). That is, it was har-monious, ordered, complete, and satisfying. It seems much morein sympathy with the priestly creation narrative as a whole to lookto the Egyptian nuance for an understanding of the divine rest,than to look to the Mesopotamian notion of the rest of the godsfollowing the burdening of human beings with their work. Therest is not so much relief from toil as satisfactory completionof the job. It bears the hallmark of what may be identified asa specifically Wisdom understanding of creation as somethingcomplete in the past rather than emergent in the present.

Egypt has rewarded us richly as a source for comparison withthe oldest elements of the priestly creation narrative as Schmidthas identified them. A question remains. Can Egypt help us at allsignificantly with the command account, the framework which hascome to regulate the action account? The rest of Ptah reminds usalso of the claim made for him of creation by his word.

Creation by the divine word was a common concept throughoutthe ancient Near East. It was not a late and refined expression ofthe divine activity in creation, but was already a live concept inancient Sumer. Its origin seems to penetrate deeply into theprimitive belief in the power of a name and the magic associatedwith words. Just as an image might partake of the essence of thething it represented, so the spoken word had the potential of thething it signified. It is closely allied to the mentality that believeda ritual act could actually evoke the reality that it portrayed.Doubtless this way of thinking was decisively reinforced by theexperience of kingship in the ancient Near East. After all the kinghad only to conceive a command and utter it, and the deed wasdone. The effective word of the despot provided an analogy for thedivine word.

The Enuma Elish opens by setting the scene before the creationby talking of a time when things had not been 'named'. IndeedMarduk displays his power in what is as much a stunt as an actof creation when he proves his word can 'wreck or create'; that

61 Extract from the Shabaka Stone, see W. Beyerlin (ed), Near Eastern ReligiousTexts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 5. The text is also translated in J. B.Pritchard: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, (Princeton,1969); for this extract see p. 5, column ii. The key word is the Egyptian verb htpwhich in the Erman-Grapow Worterbuch III, pp. 188 ff. is given a range ofmeanings, beginning with 'to be satisfied', but with many examples also of 'to rest'.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

466 JAMES E ATWELLis, at his utterance images appear and disappear.62 But it is inancient Egypt that creation by the word became part of theofficial dogma claimed by the priests of both Heliopolis andMemphis for their respective deities.

It may be that the 'tradition history' of the Genesis i creationaccount is much more of a unity than is normally supposed. Thetwo strands of action and command, which to earlier comment-ators seemed so mutually exclusive, have existed together inEgypt since high antiquity. As early as the Pyramid Texts, Hu(utterance) and Sia' (perception), which provide the conceptualtools whereby the theologians of Heliopolis articulate creationby the word for Atum, appear as a pair. In the Coffin Texts thispair is identified with elements of a more physical presentationof the work of creation.

In the New Kingdom the witness is unequivocal in claimingfor Amon-Re and Ptah creation by the word, but the claimsmade for both have deeply rooted associations with more earthyand physical concepts of creation. For instance, the Shabakastone (the inscription reflecting an original dated by J. P. Allento the New Kingdom) witnesses to the Memphite theology.That theology represents an exceptional thrust of insight whichin the period of the New Kingdom has already articulated a'logos theology'. Yet the supposed contradictions between anaction and a command account of creation cannot be more nakedlyexposed than within this text. There the theology of Memphis, bythis time mixing its sources, equates the 'teeth and lips' of Ptahwith the 'semen and hands of Atum'. The ancient traditionwhich emphasized Atum's self-sufficiency in creation by usingthe image of masturbation sits side by side with the witness tothe divine word which actually articulates the self-same theo-logical principle. Both witness to the sole initiative of the creatoracting entirely alone. Indeed Ptah, who formed by his word, isboth a chthonic deity as Ta-tenen, and a smith. In this latter capa-city he would certainly have been capable of hammering out thefirmament (ST^pi) of Genesis 1:6 in his workshop.

When the template of ancient Egyptian creation traditions isheld up against the Genesis i creation account there is a quiteremarkable correspondence.The conclusion is stark and compel-ling: ancient Egypt provided the foundation tradition which wasshaped and handed on by successive priestly generations. When

6 2 Enuma Elish Table t IV, lines 2 5 - 6 .63 J . P . Allen, Genesis in Egypt, p p . 43 f.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 467Westermann commends W. H. Schmidt's study Die Schdpfungs-geschichte der Priesterschrift he states:

He has established definitively that the first chapter of Genesis had itsorigin in the course of a history of tradition of which the written text ofP is the last stage, and which stretches back beyond and outside Israelin a long and many-branched oral pre-history.64

This study confirms that the origin of the first chapter of Genesismay be traced through a long prehistory to a source that is indeedoutside Israel. However that source may not be as many-branchedas Westermann supposed. Ancient Egypt proves to be the single,coherent and rich source of the priestly creation traditions. TheNile civilization provides not simply a possible context for oddverses, but again and again accounts for the detail of the Genesisi creation narrative and is the key to its common thread. Theorder of the pharaoh's kingdom was compatible with andresourced the vision of priestly cosmic symmetry.

This research has presented a serious challenge to any attemptto isolate creation by the word in the priestly creation accountfrom the supposedly more basic material. It is likely that thesource tradition consisted not only of those elements identifiedby Schmidt, but also included in some embryonic way a witnessto creation by the divine word. The hallmark of Wisdom has beendetected on a number of occasions. It seems a fair assumption thatthe wealth of scribal and intellectual contact in the period of theearly monarchy would have given ample occasion for this depositof tradition, already venerable, to have travelled to the Hebrewkingdom of David and Solomon and been absorbed into sacredtradition. It seems as certain as these things can be that the NewKingdom phase of ancient Egypt's development, through themedium of the wisdom tradition, provided our priestly tradentswith a single tradition of creation by word and action whichthey nurtured, refined and tooled into the composition whichwe now enjoy.

II. THE PATTERNING OF SEVENWe turn now to our second question: How does the patterning

of seven imposed upon the acts of creation relate to the traditionhistory of Genesis i?

C. Westermann, Genesis / - / / , p. 83.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

468 JAMES E. ATWELLSomething of a puzzle relating to the text of Genesis i is readily

discernible. As it stands the narrative unfolds over a seven dayperiod. The final day is the day of divine rest. Creation is there-fore recounted in six daily episodes. This pattern seems to havebeen imposed secondarily on the material as there are eight crea-tive acts. The eight acts have been compacted into six days result-ing in two acts on both the third and sixth days. How has thiscome about?

P. Humbert has argued for a cultic setting for Genesis 1:1— 2:4a.He maintains that Genesis 1 is a dramatic narrative which in itsconstruction reflects how the events of creation were celebratedover a festival of seven days' duration. This, he believes, was Israel'scelebration of the New Year, and took place at the Jerusalemtemple at the Feast of Tabernacles. By analogy with the readingof the Enuma Elish at the Babylonian New Year Festival whichconcludes with the recitation of the fifty names of Marduk, hesees Psalm 104, prefaced by the concluding verses (vv. 19-22) ofPsalm 103, which relate to enthronement, as the hymnic responseto the creator sung at the festival. He mentions also the mysteryplays of ancient Egypt similarly concluding with solar hymns.

In support of this thesis, he points to the priestly nature of thetradition of Genesis 1, indications that it was intended for publicrecitation and liturgical use, and the unnatural organization of thecreation material into seven episodes. Further he maintains thatthe blessings within the narrative and the provision of food foranimals and human beings relates naturally to a cultic setting inwhich each autumn there is a renewal of fertility. The hallowingof the sabbath indicates for Humbert a cultic usage, and hecompares the rites of consecration in 2 Chronicles 29:17. He sum-marises his conclusion: 'Le schema des sept jours serait, en ce cas,la projection sur le mythe createur lui-meme du calendrier decette fete automnale et primitivement agraire qui commemoraitet operait le renouveau de l'annee au cours de la premiere semainede l'an'.66

If Humbert is correct then we have a plausible explanationfor the seven days of creation. A similar observation is made byL. R. Fisher when he draws a comparison between the schemeof Genesis 1 and both the building of Ba'al's temple in theUgaritic texts in seven days and Solomon's temple in seven years(1 Kings 6:38). He concludes: 'If these temples were constructed

P. Humbert, 'La relation de Genese 1 et du Psaume 104 avec la liturgie duNouvel-An israelite', RHPR 15 (1935), pp. 1—27.

66 Ibid., p. 14.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 469in terms of "seven" it is really no wonder that the creation poemof Genesis i is inserted in a seven-day framework'.67

The problem is that there is no direct evidence, as we have forBabylon in the first millennium for Enutna Elish, for the associationof the Genesis i narrative with the cult. We must take seriouslythe judgement of W. H. Schmidt when he can find no evidencethat the priestly creation narrative was used as a liturgical text:'... aber die biblische Schopfungsgeschichte bietet keine Anzei-chen dafiir, daG sie einmal die Legende eines Festes war undirgendwie "begangen", szenischdramatisch dargestellt wurde'.68

The fact that Genesis i was not itself a liturgical text, ifSchmidt is correct, does not mean that it has not been stampedand fashioned by cultic considerations. A learned priestly apo-logia about creation, as Genesis i undoubtedly is, would stillreflect and give expression to the way in which creation, stabilityand fertility were celebrated, and perhaps in some way livedthrough in worship. It is unlikely that a priestly narrative accountof creation would be totally divorced from the thought-formsand patterns familiar from the cult. Indeed it is highly likely thatthese would provide the framework for learned reflection. Indica-tions that this was indeed the case are forthcoming from thepriestly primeval history. The observation of L. M. Barre isrelevant here:

P's dating the end of the flood narrative on 1.1.601 (rather than on2.27.601) places the establishment of God's covenant with Noah on NewYear's Day. This parallels P's creation account, in which the creation ofthe world was concluded on another day of ritual importance—thesabbath. In this way the Priestly writer connected both the creation andthe re-creation of the world with Israelite liturgy.69

We can go this far with P. Humbert with some confidence. Itseems most likely that the period of seven days for creation inthe priestly narrative presented itself by analogy with liturgicalobservation. However this is not to say that the text as it nowstands was ever used as a liturgical piece.

The priestly creation text did not appear in its present form 'ata stroke'. It has developed through generations of handling, andso has the significance of the seven days and in particular the

6 7 L. R. Fisher, ' T h e T e m p l e Quar ter ' , jfSS 8 (1963), p 40. W e may note inthis context the interesting, bu t not provable, suggestion of P. C. Craigie, ' T h eCompar i son of Hebrew poetry: Psalm 104 in the light of Egyptian and Ugarit icPoetry ' , Semitic! 4 (1974), pp . 1 0 - 2 1 , that Psalm 104 was originally composed forthe very feast of Tabernacles which saw Solomon 's temple dedicated.

6 8 W . H . Schmid t , Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, p . 73 .6 9 L. M. Barre, 'The Riddle of the Flood Chronology', JSOT 41 (1988), p. 17.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

470 JAMES E. ATWELLseventh. The first of the days to contain two acts of creation is daythree. On that day both the earth and plant life appear. On theprevious day the way had been prepared for the creation of landby the dividing of the waters, which is made permanent by thefabrication of the firmament.

There is an enigma connected with the second day. Why is itthat the act of division has only one consequence, that is, the crea-tion of the firmament? It is of the essence of ancient Near Easterncreation accounts that a single act of division results in a doubleconsequence. Heaven and earth are created at a single stroke. Forinstance, in ancient Sumer An (male heaven) and Ki (femaleearth) are separated, according to the story of Enlil and the Pick-axe, by the god Enlil. We have already noted how in ancientEgypt Geb (the earth god) and Nut (the sky goddess) are separ-ated by their father Shu (the air). One valid way of describingthe pre-creation state in ancient Egypt is: 'before two things haddeveloped in this world'.

W. G. Lambert has argued that the two episodes recounted ontwo different days that bring into existence heaven and earthshould be regarded as separate and distinct traditions assembledby the priestly tradition. However, there are indications withinthe priestly narrative itself that it is built around the dual conceptof the creation of heaven and earth. Priestly circles would cer-tainly have been familiar with 'the heavens and the earth' har-nessed as a united concept in blessing formulae. The phraseforms a common word-pair which is taken up in the summarystatement which opens the creation account (1:1). Heaven andearth stand over the whole priestly creation account as a singlearchetype. Together they provide the basis from which the detailof the subsequent acts can be fitted together. Once those two areasare established the remaining narrative is totally taken up withhow one or other of them is filled.

A further observation confirms the impression given by thenarrative. The refrain 'And God saw that it was good' does notoccur at the end of the second day in the MT, but is misplacedinto the middle of the third day, precisely after the creation ofearth. As a result the third day is declared good twice. The LXXnoticed this problem and tidied it up by moving the favourablejudgement of God to where it would seem to belong, in the present

7 0 Coffin Texts 261, line 6.71 W. G. Lamber t , 'A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis ' ,

JTS, NS, 16 (1965), p . 269: ' M y opinion is that the second and third days containoriginally unrelated t radi t ions, pu t in this sequence by the Hebrew author ' .

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 471setting before the refrain about 'evening and morning' in v. 8.However, this is without a doubt the easier reading and is there-fore not to be preferred.72 The reading of the M T seems to bearwitness to the fact that it was indeed the understanding of P'sinherited material that the two stages of the creation of heaven(vv. 6-8) and the creation of earth (vv. 9-10) relate to a single'phase' of creation.

If the creation of heaven and earth was indeed originally consid-ered one episode and the work of a single day, the fact still remainsthat there are two separate stages relating to the management ofthe waters. One speaks of the 'division' of the waters (v. 6) result-ing in the creation of the firmament, and the other the 'gathering'of the waters (v. 9) resulting in the appearance of dry land. Inwhat sense could these be understood to have any fundamentalbond or connection? Are they not arbitrary traditions juxtaposed?

The division of the waters and the gathering of the waterscould both appropriately find a place in Egyptian cosmology.J. P. Allen's summary of creation in Egypt has potentially inter-esting consequences if it is read with the priestly narrative inmind:The creation itself is described in a series of discrete yet interdependentevents. Within the Monad appears a space devoid (Shu) of the PrimevalWaters, separating earth (Geb) from the surface of the Waters (Nut). Asthe Waters receded, the first mound of land became distinct (Ta-tenen),and the sun rose over it to begin the ever-recurring cycle of life.

According to this analysis, the separating of the waters and thereceding of the waters are related but distinct stages in Egyptiancosmology. The separating of the waters by the atmospherecreates a void with a distinction between top and bottom, thatis the heavenly firmament and the watery earth; but the latterstill has to drain for the dry land to emerge and the sea to form.It is itself probably an ancient composite tradition combining ori-ginally distinct elements. Such a picture transferred to the priestlycreation account makes complete sense of the concept of division

This indication of a disturbance in the present state of the text was noted byJ. Wel lhausen , Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der hislorischen Biicher des AltenTestament (Berlin, 18892), p p . 187 ff.

73 J . P . Allen, Genesis in Egypt, p . 58.74 Ibid., p. 25 • 'The creation of the void produced simultaneously a distinction

between Top and Bottom—sky and earth—within the void, and preceded thedevelopment of all the other elements of nature: "the eldest that Atum made withhis efficacy, when he gave birth to Shu and Tefnut in Heliopolis , when heparted Geb from Nut, before the first Corps [of gods] was born, before the twooriginal Enneads developed" (Coffin Text 80, lines 74-79)'.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

472 JAMES E. ATWELLwith its double consequence, but also does justice to the gatheringof the waters. The two stages could be prized apart because theyhad a separate identity, but only once the carriers of the traditionhad lost any awareness of the significance of the relationshipbetween them.

If the creation of heaven and earth is taken as originally a singleepisode in the priestly inherited material, then the number ofphases or acts of creation to be identified within the limits ofSchmidt's primitive material would be seven. In that case it isquite conceivable that the priestly tradents received the traditionalready in that form. This involves the assumption that the fishand birds created together (on the fifth day according to thepresent text) is a feature of the primary material. Westermannstates: 'We can say with certainty that at one stage the creationof the water animals was a separate story and that the creationof the birds was grafted on to it. This took place at an early stage,because they were together in the tradition that came to P'.It could be an indication that Schmidt's earliest form of thetradition already had a prehistory during the course of whichthe number seven had been imposed upon it. It is likely that itdid not simply emerge, but was a deliberate and considered devel-opment at an early stage. W. H. Schmidt 6 adduces a passage froma hymn to Amun-Re where fish and fowl are considered together.That may be confirmation that we are here dealing with thepre-Hebrew Egyptian phase of the text's history.

The number seven was a significant number, as Cassutoreminds us.77 It is well established in the Ugaritic myths, in par-ticular with the seven-yearly drama of Mot's (Death's) bid forpower as well as with the seven days of construction of Ba'aPstemple. It is integral to the 'fat' and 'lean' years of the narrativeof Joseph in Egypt. There is some evidence for the significanceof the number seven in ancient Egypt, although it was by nomeans exclusively important. For instance Triads were a distinc-tive feature of the New Kingdom. However Professor J. GwynGriffiths affords the following quotation:

Sethe sees the prominence of four in Egypt gradually yielding to that ofseven. Certainly there are plenty of irrational sevens. Sethe cites the sevencows of the underworld; the seven gods and serpents with which the dead

5 C. Westermann, Genesis i - n , pp 135-6.W. H. Schmidt, Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, p. 124, draws

attention to a passage in a Hymn to Amon-Re where birds and fish are referred totogether. For the lines of the hymn in question see ANET p 366 (vi) Lines 5-6.

U. Cassuto, Genesis I, pp. 12 ff.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 473must associate; the seven scorpions which accompany Isis in the Deltain the Metternich Stela; the seven Hathors who help with childbirth,and the several medical groups of seven. Many examples apply to ritualprocedures.78

It would not be surprising to find the significant figure sevenshaping a tradition of the number of the works of the creator. Ifso, it is interesting to note that it is likely that these seven actswould have been associated with the work of a single day. Inancient Egypt the significance of the first sunrise in calling allthings into being associated the creation of the cosmos with thecycle of a single day.

If early tradition had already moulded the acts of the creatorinto a mystical seven associated with a single day, then those actswere simply waiting to be distributed over a period of seven daysreflected in the celebration of a festival. That festival was in alllikelihood the autumn Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. Thedistribution of the seven acts of creation over seven days is clearlya development in the Hebrew phase of the tradition. The Hebrewsused a lunar calendar and measured the week in seven days. Bycontrast, the Egyptians were conversant with the solar calendarand measured the week in ten days.

That the number seven became associated with the days of aweek before the present specifically sabbath arrangement, with aday of rest, was imposed on the text is suggested by the text ofGenesis 2:2. As it stands, the text suggests that God actuallyfinished his work on the seventh day. The LXX, aware of this prob-lem, has substituted the number six for seven. Again it is so muchthe simpler reading that it cannot be accepted. But it witnessesto an early awareness that the text does not read naturally.

Scholars have tried various ways of getting around thisdifficulty. Skinner states: 'To take the vb. as plup. (Calv. al) isgrammatically impossible. The only remaining course is to givea purely negative sense to the vb. finish: i.e. 'desisted from', 'didnot continue' The last view may be accepted, in spite of theabsence of convincing parallels'. A. Heidel takes as decisivethe context of the preceding two verses that envisage God'swork as complete and maintains we have here a 'declarativepi'eP. He therefore translates: 'And on the seventh day Goddeclared His work finished'.80 Cassuto tries comparisons with

7 8 J. G w y n Griffiths, Triads and Trinity (Cardiff, 1996), p . 21 . T h e reference isto K. Sethe, Von Zahlen und Zahlworten bei den alten Agyptern (St rassburg, 1916)

79 J. Skinner , Genesis, p . 37.8 0 A. Heidel , The Babylonian Genesis, p . 127.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

474 JAMES E. ATWELLusage elsewhere in P, and adduces in particular Exodus 40:33where the erection of the tent of meeting is completed, andP reports 'so Moses finished his work'.81 Westermann agrees thatthis was a fixed form of speech at hand to P. But the problemstill remains as to why the narrative does not leave this 'pointfinal' under the previous day, but carries it over into the seventh.

The simplest and most straightforward solution remains that ofWellhausen. In the layer of tradition behind the immediate textthe acts of God were distributed over seven days, 'And on theseventh day God finished his work which he had made; and herested ..." (Genesis 2:2). In other words humankind was formedon the seventh day as the Maker's crowning achievement.

For the final stage of the text we may look for some light oncemore to W. G. Lambert.83 He makes the point that the tradents ofP were not original thinkers in the sense of making up new ideas.They could not simply have 'invented' the sabbath rest of God.Their creativity was evident rather through the novel arrangementand juxtaposition of old and prized traditions. Lambert furthermakes the point that the sabbath in Israel has at least two justifi-cations for its institution (Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15).This suggests that as an institution it is older than both, and thatthe rest of creation is therefore an interpretation imposed upon it.The implications are that P had two traditions to hand. Onerecounted the creation of the world in seven days, and told thaton the seventh day, after the completion of human beings, God'desisted from', 'ceased from', 'brought to a conclusion' (]"1212?)his works. The other preserved the ancient institution of the sab-bath (rfltP), and the religious duty of a day of rest on the seventhday.8 Once these traditions were brought together the potentialfor priestly theology was fascinating. The sabbath rest becameexalted to an order of creation. The new combination of traditionsforced the creation of human beings from the seventh day, andtherefore necessitated a reallocation of the 'creation week' to six

81 U . Cassuto, Genesis I, p p . 61 ff.8 2 C. Wes te rmann , Genesis I - I I , p. 170

3 W. G. Lamber t , 'A N e w Look at the Babylonian Background of Genes is ' ,JTS NS, 16 (1965), p p . 296 ff

T h e Hebrew provides the pun , which would not have been present in theEgyptian, for the priestly theological innovation. Whether the etymology is to beconnected is another quest ion. C. Wes te rmann, Genesis / - / / , p . 173, states: ' I t canremain an open quest ion whether the verb fin© is to be linked with the noun D31T;they already occur in the same context in J in Ex. 16:29 f- (cf- M . Noth , Exodus,1962, p . 136.)'.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 475days. This accounts for the congestion of two acts of creation onthe sixth day.

At a subsequent, but somewhat similar, stage in the traditionhistory of our text we perceive a further patterning at work whichextended the order and symmetry of the material.85 The sixdays of activity are divided neatly into two halves, with the corres-ponding days of each half mirroring the other. We may usefullyreproduce this correspondence in chart form as follows:

Preparation of Environment.Day iLet there be light.

Day 2The creation of the firmamentrestricts the sea and creates theatmospheric space (heaven).

Day 3(i) Dry land appears.

(ii) Green things; seedingplants and fruit trees sproutforth.

Filling of Environment.Day 4Let there be lights.

Day 5Fishes and fowl fill the seaand the heaven.

Day 6(i) Terrestrial animals andhuman beings are created,(ii) Allocation of food foranimals & human beings.

Day 7The Sabbath rest of God.

It is this stage which accounts for the shifting of the point atwhich the heavenly bodies were made. Their present position,which we have previously noted is somewhat illogical, is quiteconsistent with the internal symmetry of the narrative. It is likelythat this stage also accounts for the fracture of day 2 and theprizing apart of the traditions relating to the creation of heavenand earth. The emergence of dry land is now appropriate to day3. The dry land and its greening need to occur on the same day,to correspond with the creatures with which it is filled and theallocation of food on day 6.

With this final patterning the priestly signature is complete, andthe creation account embodies the order and balance which Passociates with the divine activity. It concludes with the sabbathrest, and firmly anchors the cultic life of Israel in the Creator'spurpose in establishing world order.

See U. Cassuto, Genesis I, p. 17, and J Skinner, Genesis, pp. 8-y.

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

476 JAMES E. ATWELLIII. THE THEOLOGICAL THRUST OF THE

NARRATIVEWe turn now to our final question: what is the theological thrust

of the narrative as it now stands?Within the movement of the primary material, as Schmidt has

identified it, the thrust of the narrative moves towards the creationof human beings as the climax of the Creator's achievement. TheCreator has certainly embarked upon a cosmos which includesall things in 'heaven and earth', and covers the stars as well as theminutiae of the biology of living creatures. Yet within this vastcosmos the humanistic motivation of the wisdom tradition hasimposed a 'human centredness' upon it. We can draw a parallelwith Genesis 2, where the small world of garden-orchard anddomestic animals is created around Adam. In the primary mater-ial of Genesis 1 the whole cosmos is, if not created around humanbeings, at least moving towards their appearance as the crowningglory of the Creator's work. This assessment of human destinywould have been totally foreign to Mesopotamian thinking. Butit would have been at home in ancient Egyptian thought at thosemoments in its development when the humanistic influences ofthe wisdom tradition were strong; we may think particularly ofthe evidence afforded by the Instruction for King Merikare in theFirst Intermediate Period.

The final stage of the tradition as we have it in Genesis 1:1—2:43is different. The sabbath has interposed. As a result the fashioningof human beings 'in the image of God' is still very significant, butno longer the goal of the narrative. The thrust of the narrativenow leads on through the days of creation to the rest of God onthe seventh day. That is now the climax of the story. The effect ofthe sabbath has been to restore a God-centredness to the accountof the creation of the cosmos.

We say 'to restore' advisedly. We have constantly had cause tonote that the tradition, even before the spring bubbled up to bethe source of the flowing rivers of its priestly phase, had a history.That history was grounded in the Egyptian concept of the orderof creation dominated by Ma'at. In that order human beingshad a dignity and a responsibility, but only as part of the Creator'stotal order. The world did not receive its purpose from serving theneeds of humanity, nor by being a sort of backdrop or theatre forthe convenience of the human drama alone. The world received itspurpose because that was the way the Creator had made it. Thefact that it was God's initiative and God's achievement was allthe justification its existence required. Human beings and the

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

AN EGYPTIAN SOURCE FOR GENESIS i 477gods were simply servants of this God-given order. The chick inthe egg, the gnat and the worm had in God a justification of theirown.

The priestly narrative of creation six times declares the worldin its individual parts to be 'good', and once in its entirety 'verygood'. In an omission which should not be regarded as significanthuman beings actually miss out, and are not included under oneof the 'goods'. However they are part of the total order which isdeclared 'very good'. It is an indication that they are not quitethe preoccupation of the final form of the narrative that they wereof an earlier stage.

The priestly tradition witnesses to the ordering of the cosmosby the Creator. It is a witness to a God-centred world. Humanbeings have rights, duties, responsibilities, a significant place inthe Creator's scheme. But over against that the physical and mater-ial order, as well as the natural world of plants and animals, havea justification other than that of serving the welfare of humanity.The only justification they need for their existence is that Godenjoys them: 'and God saw that it was good'. They have beencalled into being by him. The Bible in its opening verses tells ofa wonderful and ordered cosmos which receives both its originand its continuing significance from God alone.

JAMES E. ATWELL

at Durham


ovember 21, 2011


ownloaded from

Date post:	28-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	manliotasso
View:	69 times
Download:	5 times

An Egyptian Source for Genesis I

Documents